1. Field of the Invention
The present invention has particular utility in a reduced instruction set computer architecture, two examples of which are described in considerable detail, as to their basic architectural features as well as overall design consideration, in the two articles (1) "The 801 Minicomputer," by George Radin and (2) "RISC I: A reduced Instruction Set VLSI Computer," by Patterson and Sequin. The complete bibliographic data for these two articles is set forth more fully in the subsequent Prior Art section.
Current developments in the semiconductor industry indicate that very large-scale integration (VLSI) affords microprocessor designers two conflicting approaches to designing future systems. The first is that they can continue the current trend, where VLSI is used to build increasingly complex microprocessors, where greater complexity is exhibited as more hardware to do functions previously done by software alone. Alternatively, they can take the opposite approach and build simpler, very fast processors, where more functions are done by software. This second approach is exemplified in the two above-referenced articles.
Greater complexity lets designers use ever-cheaper VLSI circuits in place of increasingly expensive and processor time consuming software. What's more, the takeover of many software functions by hardware is said to help programmers develop high-level language (HLL) programs that are shorter, more efficient, and easier to write, compile and debug. More complex systems would, in theory, reduce the high cost of developing software and thus reduce the total life-cycle cost of a system.
Thus, system designers following the first approach, increase the complexity of architectures commensurate with the increasing potential of implementation technologies, as exemplified by the complex successors of simpler machines. Compare, for example, VAX 11 to PDP-11, IBM System/38 to IBM System/3, and Intel APX-432 to 8086. The consequences of this complexity are increased design time, an increased potential for design errors and inconsistent implementations. This class of computers has been referred to in the literature as complex instruction set computing (CISC) systems.
As indicated previously in the above referenced article "The 801 Minicomputer" by G. Radin a coinventor of the present invention, a unique approach to overall CPU architecture has been realized following the second of the two previously mentioned approaches to architecture design, i.e., a reduced instruction set computer. The heart of such a system architecture is its CPU. Most of the aspects of this system are designed to make available to the user the fundamental power of the underlying CPU. The overall organization is somewhat different from more conventional CPUs.
There will now follow a brief overall description of the CPU design strategy utilized in the CPU of the Radin article followed by a more specific description of the details of the CPU insofar as is deemed necessary to provide a basis for understanding how the present invention fits into the overall system architectural scheme.
Conventional CPUs for general purpose systems in the middle range of cost are organized as hardwired microprocessors "interpreting" the architecture of the CPU. Thus the execution of a CPU instruction normally requires the execution of several "microinstructions" which normally reside in a high-speed memory called a "control store." The number of such micro-instructions (or "machine cycles") required to execute an average CPU instruction depends on the power (hence cost) of the underlying microprocessor, the complexity of the CPU architecture, and the application being run (i.e., the instruction mix). Typically, for instance, an IBM S/370 model 168 will require 3-6 cycles per S/370 instruction, a model 148 will take 10-15 and a S/360 model 30 will need over 30 cycles.
Very sophisticated S/370 CPU designs have demonstrated the possibility of approaching one machine cycle per instruction by using techniques of look-ahead, parallel execution and keeping branch histories.
Instruction mixes for different application types show differences in frequency of execution of instructions. For instance, scientific applications will use the S/370 floating point instructions and commercial applications will use decimal arithmetic. But, especially when an entire running system is traced instead of just the application code, there is a remarkable similarity in the list of most popular instructions. Moreover, these tend to be rather simple functions, such as load, store, branch, compare, integer arithmetic, logic shifting. These same functions generally are found to be in the instruction repertoire of the underlying microprocessor. Thus, for these functions, it was considered wasteful to pay the interpretive overhead necessary when the micro-architecture does not precisely match the CPU architecture.
Therefore, the primitive instruction set designed for the subject primitive reduced instruction set machine system may be directly executed by hardware. (In the subsequent description, the acronym PRISM will be used instead of the full expression PRimitive Instruction Set Machine for convenience of reference.) That is, every primitive instruction takes exactly one machine cycle. Complex functions are implemented in "micro-code" just as they are in conventional CPUs, except that in the present system this microcode is just code; that is, the functions are implemented by software subroutines running on the primitive instruction set.
The advantages of micro-code that accrue because it resides in high-speed control store virtually disappears with a memory hierarchy in which the cache is split into a part that contains data and a part that contains instructions. The instruction cache acts as a "pageable" control store because frequently-used functions will, with very high probability, be found in this high-speed memory. The major difference is that in a conventional CPU the architect decides in advance which functions will most frequently be used across all applications. Thus, for instance, double precision floating point divide always resides in high speed control store while the First Level Interrupt Handler may be in main memory. With an instruction cache it is recent usage that decides which functions will be available more quickly.
With this approach, the number of cycles required to do a particular job is at worst no more than on a conventional (low-to-moderately priced) CPU in which the complex instructions have been microprogrammed. But by carefully defining the primitive instructions to be an excellent target machine for the compiler, it has been found that far fewer cycles are actually required. In fact, for systems programs, fewer instructions are required than S/370 instructions.
Most instruction mixes show that between 20% and 40% of instructions go to storage to send or receive data, and between 15% and 30% of instructions are branches. Moreover, for many applications, a significant percent of the memory bandwidth is taken for I/O. If the CPU is forced to wait many cycles for storage access its internal performance will be wasted.
The second major goal of the present (PRISM) system design, therefore, was to organize the storage hierarchy and develop a system architecture to minimize CPU idle time due to storage access. First, it was clear that a cache was required whose access time was consistent with the machine cycle of the CPU. Secondly a "store-in-cache" strategy was used (instead of "storing through" to the backing store) so that the 10% to 20% of expected store instructions would not degrade the performance severely. (For instance, if the time to store a word is ten cycles, and 10% of instructions are stores, the CPU will be idle about half the time unless it can overlap execution of the instructions following the store.) But a CPU organization which needs a new instruction at every cycle as well as accessing data every third cycle will be degraded by a conventional cache which delivers a word every cycle. Thus the cache was split into a part containing data and a part containing instructions. In this way the bandwidth to the cache was effectively doubled and asynchronous fetching of instructions and data from the backing store was permitted.
Conventional architectures make this decision difficult because every store of data can be a modification of an instruction, perhaps even the one following the store. Thus the hardware must ensure that the two caches are properly synchronized, a job that is either expensive or degrading, or (generally) both. Even instruction prefetch mechanisms are complex since the effective address of a store must be compared to the Instruction Address Register.
It has been found, however, that as soon as index registers were introduced into computers the frequency of instruction modification fell dramatically, until today, instructions are virtually never modified. Therefore, the PRISM architecture does not require this hardware broadcasting. Instead it exposes the existence of the split cache and provides instructions by which software can synchronize the caches when required, which is only in such functions as "program fetch."
Similarly, in conventional systems in which the existence of a cache is unobservable to the software, I/O must (logically) go through the cache. This is often accomplished in less expensive systems by sending the I/O physically through the cache. The result is that the CPU must wait while the I/O proceeds, and that after an I/O burst the contents of the cache no longer reflect the working set of the process being executed, forcing it back into transient mode. Even in expensive systems a broadcasting or directory-duplication strategy may result in some performance degradation.
It was noted that responsibility for the initiation of I/O in current systems was evolving toward system access methods using fixed block transfers and a buffer strategy which normally moved data between subsystem buffers and user areas (e.g., IMS, VTAM, VSAM, paging). This implies that the access method knows the location and extent of the buffer and knows when an I/O transfer is in process. Thus this software can properly synchronize the caches, and the "channel" (Direct Memory Adapter in the PRISM system) can transmit directly to and from the backing store. The result of this system approach is that even when half of the memory bandwidth is being used for I/O the CPU is virtually undegraded.
Notice that in all of the preceding discussions an underlying strategy is being applied. Namely, wherever there is a system function which is expensive or slow in all its generality, but where software can recognize a frequently occurring degenerate case (or can move the entire function from run time to compile time) that function is moved from hardware to software, resulting in lower cost and improved performance.
One interesting example of the application of this overall design strategy concerns managing the cache itself. In the PRISM system the cache line is 32 bytes and the largest unit of a store is four bytes. In such a cache, whose line size is larger than the unit of a store and in which a "store in cache" approach is taken, a store directed at a word which is not in the cache must initiate a fetch of the entire line from the backing store into the cache. This is because, as far as the cache can tell, a load of another word from this line might be requested subsequently. Frequently, however, the store is simply the first store into what, to the program, is newly acquired space. It could be temporary storage on a process stack (e.g., PL/I Automatic) just pushed on procedure call; it could be an area obtained by a Getmain request; or it could be a register store area used by the First Level Interrupt Handler. In all of these cases the hardware does not know that no old values from that line will be needed, while to the software this situation is quite clear.
Accordingly, an instruction has been defined in the PRISM system called SET DATA CACHE LINE, which instructs the cache to establish the requested line in its directory but not to get its old values from the backing store. (Thus, after execution of this instruction, the values in this line will be whatever happened to be in the cache at the time.) If this instruction is executed whenever fresh storage is acquired unnecessary fetches from the backing store will be eliminated. (On the other hand, the execution of the instruction for each new line itself adds CPU cycles. Performance modelling on specific hardware configurations running specific applications will indicate the best tradeoff.)
Similarly when a scratch storage area is no longer needed, executing the instruction INVALIDATE DATA CACHE LINE will turn the "changed" bit off in the cache directory entry corresponding to the named line, thus eliminating an unnecessary storeback. (See copending PCT application serial No. U.S. Pat. No. 82/01830).
The above general discussion of the PRISM features which result in overlapped access to the cache between instructions and data, overlapped backing store access among the caches and I/O, less hardware synchronizing among the caches and I/O, and techniques to improve the cache hit ratios, indicates the overall flavor of the PRISM design objectives.
However, to fully realize the potential objectives of the PRISM system's overall design approach, it has been found advantageous to include certain hardware modifications whereby a number of powerful one-machine cycle executable instructions are available. Five of these architectural features are set forth and described in the present application and the four copending related patent applications:
U.S. patent Ser. No. 509,733 PA0 U.S. patent Ser. No. 509,734 PA0 U.S. patent Ser. No. 509,836 PA0 U.S. patent Ser. No. 566,925
2. RELATED U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
The subject application is related to other copending applications having different inventorship entities and owned by the same assignee as the present application. These other applications:
(1) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 509,733, entitled "Mechanism for Implementing One Machine Cycle Executable Trap Instructions in a Primitive Instruction Set Computing System," by M. A. Auslander, J. Cocke, H. Hao, P. W. Markstein and G. Radin.
(2) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 509,734, entitled "Mechanism for Implementing One Machine Cycle Executable Branch-On-Bit-In-Any-Register Instructions in a Primitive Instruction Set Computing System," by M. A. Auslander, H. Hao, M. Hopkins, P. W. Markstein, and G. Radin and W. S. Worley.
(3) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 509,836, entitled "Mechanism for Implementing One Machine Cycle Executable Mask and Rotate Instructions in a Primitive Instruction Set Computing System," by H. Hao, P. W. Markstein and G. Radin.
(4) U.S. patent application Ser. No. 566,925, entitled "Internal Bus Architecture for a Primitive Instruction Set Machine," by J. Cocke, D. Fisk, L. Pereira and G. Radin.
The two following PCT applications filed Dec. 30, 1982 are related to the present application in that they also have particular memory hierarchy including a split cache and to an address translation mechanism respectively.
(1) PCT Ser. No. U.S. 82/01830, entitled "Hierarchical Memory System Including Separate Cache Memories for Storing Data and Instructions," by F. P. Carrubba, J. Cocke, N. H. Kreitzer and G. Radin.
(2) PCT Ser. No. U.S. 82/01829, entitled "Virtual Memory Address Translation Mechanism with Controlled Data Persistence," by A. Chang, J. Cocke, M. F. Mergen and G. Radin.
3. Prior Art
An article entitled "The 801 Minicomputer," by George Radin, published in ACM SIGPLAN NOTICES, Vol. 17, No. 4, April 1982, pages 39-47, includes a general description of an experimental computer whose operational characteristics depend to a large extent on a very fast memory subsystem having separate caches for instruction and data and also having a primitive very basic instruction set providing most commonly used machine operations most of which should be executable in a single machine cycle. The various one cycle executable instructions of the above referenced copending applications and the condition register architecture of the present invention have particular utility in such a machine architecture.
A similar CPU architecture has been described by Patterson and Sequin in "RISC 1: a Reduced Instruction Set VLSI Computer," in the IEEE 8th Annual Symposium on Architecture Conference Proceedings of May 12-14, 1981, at pages 443-449, and in expanded form in IEEE Computer, September 1982 at pages 8-20. The RISC 1: system is stated to be a reduced instruction set machine. No reference is made to any special condition register architecture or hardware for implementing same in this article.